On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 08:25, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
> > Futile though it may be, I would like to register disagreement.
>
> I think it is not necessarily futile, though in my understanding (I
> must admit it may be biased) many people have agreed on the proposed
> change.
Admittedly I am also biased due to having a DIID implementation out
there.
>
> > If the intention truly was to simplify the specification, we would be
> > going to pure DIID. As it is, removing mention of DIID seems like a
> > gratuitous change at best. As an author of one of those DIID
> > implementations, I find this somewhat unfortunate.
>
> Please check the proposed change posted to this list the other day
> (attached below).
I did.
> This is basically "removing mention of DIID" on
> which you seem to be able to agree.
That's not what I said. Please let me clarify what I meant.
I find the change gratuitous, because it seems unnecessary. It does not
appear to achieve much besides removing a useful optimization (and one
short paragraph of text from the RFC). It's already been pointed out (by
you amongst others) that SEND addresses aren't likely to collide with
addresses autoconfigured by DIID nodes.
I find the change unfortunate, because it makes a class of deployed
implementations incompatible with the new specification. You have stated
that this is not the intention, but intentions are not written into the
RFC. Unfortunately, writers of conformance tests only read the RFC.
So, I'm opposed on the grounds that the change achieves little besides
inconveniencing people who have DIID implementations out there.
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
